Nunn v. Epps et al, No. 2:2010cv00066 - Document 5 (S.D. Miss. 2010)
Court Description: Memorandum Opinion and Order re 2 Order, 3 Order to Show Cause, 4 Order to Show Cause. This action is dismissed without prejudice for Petitioner's failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the orders of the Court. A separate Judgment will be entered herein. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on 8/6/10 (scp)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Nunn v. Epps et al Doc. 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI HATTIESBURG DIVISION CRUZ NUNN, #121736 PETITIONER VERSUS CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:10-cv-66-KS-MTP CHRISTOPHER EPPS, et al. RESPONDENTS MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER On March 29, 2010, Petitioner filed a request for habeas relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254. On March 30, 2010, an order [2] was entered directing Petitioner to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis or to pay the $5.00 filing fee, on or before April 21, 2010. The Petitioner was warned in this Court s order [2] of March 30, 2010, that failure to timely comply with the requirements of the Court s order may lead to the dismissal of his petition. Petitioner failed to comply with this order [2]. On May 7, 2010, this Court entered an order [3] directing Petitioner to show cause why this cause should not be dismissed for Petitioner' failure to comply with the March 30, 2010, s order [2]. Petitioner was also directed to comply with the March 30, 2010, order [2] by filing a completed certificate to proceed in forma pauperis or paying the $5.00 filing fee, on or before May 28, 2010. The Petitioner was warned in this Court s order [3] of May 7, 2010, that failure to timely comply with the requirements of the order may result in this cause being dismissed. Petitioner failed to comply with this order [3]. Since Petitioner is proceeding pro se, he was given another opportunity to comply with this Court' order [2] of March 30, 2010, in a final order to show cause [4] entered June 22, 2010. s This Court s order [4] directed Petitioner to show cause why this case should not be dismissed Dockets.Justia.com for his failure to comply with the Court' orders [2, 3] of March 30, 2010, and May 7, 2010. In s addition, Petitioner was directed to comply with this Court s order [2] of March 30, 2010, by filing completed certificate to proceed in forma pauperis or paying the $5.00 filing fee, on or before July 13, 2010. Petitioner was warned in this Court' order [4] of June 22, 2010, that s failure to advise this Court of a change of address or failure to timely comply with the requirements of the order would result in this cause being dismissed. Petitioner failed to comply with this order [4]. Petitioner has failed to comply with three Court orders and has not contacted this Court since March 29, 2010. This Court has the authority to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with Court orders under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and under its inherent authority to dismiss the action sua sponte. See generally Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626 (1962); Larson v. Scott, 157 F.3d 1030 (5th Cir.1998); McCullough v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126 (5th Cir. 1988). The Court must be able to clear its calendars of cases that remain dormant because of the inaction or dilatoriness of the parties seeking relief, so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases. Link, 370 U.S. at 630. Such a sanction is necessary in order to prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases and to avoid congestion in the calendars of the Court. Id. at 629-30. The Court concludes that dismissal of this action for Petitioner s failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the orders of the Court under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is proper. Since the Respondents have not been called on to respond to Petitioner s pleading, and the Court has not considered the merits of Petitioner s claims, the Court' order of s dismissal is without prejudice. See Munday/Elkins Auto. Partners, LTD. v. Smith, 201 F. App x 2 265, 267 (5th Cir. 2006). A Final Judgment in accordance with this Memorandum Opinion and Order will be entered. SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, this the 6th day of August, 2010. s/ Keith Starrett UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
